200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « on: April 11, 2013, 11:21:57 AM » Author: Silverliner
wow! see: http://www.edisonreport.net/lighting-industry-news/philips-launch-200-lpw-fluorescent-replacement/
		Logged

Administrator of Lighting-Gallery.net. Need help? PM me.

Member of L-G since 2005.

Collector of vintage bulbs, street lights and fluorescent fixtures.

Electrician.

Also a fan of cars, travelling, working out, food, hanging out.

Power company: Southern California Edison.

	Re: 200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « Reply #1 on: April 11, 2013, 12:27:28 PM » Author: dor123
I doubt that this will actually reach this feagure (Similar efficiency of 135W SOX-E LPS lamp). If Philips talks about LED tubes, the commercial product willn't be more than 80lm/w, and will last much less than a fluorescent on magnetic ballast, as it is a retrofit product for existing lighting technology, and not a complete LED fixture, so there is no room to include a good quality heatsinking.
		Logged

I"m don't speak English well, and rely on online translating to write in this site.
Please forgive me if my choice of my words looks like offensive, while that isn't my intention.

I only working with the international date format (dd.mm.yyyy).

I lives in Israel, which is a 220-240V, 50hz country.

	Re: 200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « Reply #2 on: April 11, 2013, 02:22:02 PM » Author: Medved
200lm/W in 80..90CRI would be about 60..70% energy efficient, I see that impossible. With some really highly efficient (50% or more in real power) orange/red  LED's and sufficing with CRI in the 70's (containing only shorter wavelength red, maybe as separate dies), then with the overall efficiency of around the 50% the 200lm/W could be attained. But these days the red LED's are fall short of the 50% milestone the blue chips reached already some time ago, so they should have something "in pockets", otherwise it won't be possible. Other way to get such figure could be by using an "equivalent fluorescent efficacy" for overall system efficacy of an average office fixture: Because of the fluorescent nature, about 30% of the light get lost inside of the fixture. With LED's being easy to efficiently optimize the beam pattern, these 30% of light losses could be eliminated, so an "200lm/W equivalent" would in fact mean ~140lm/W of real lamp efficacy and no light losses in the fixture.
		Logged

No more selfballasted c***

	Re: 200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « Reply #4 on: April 11, 2013, 02:43:54 PM » Author: Silverliner
i read the trick was done by using a sort of a rgb design. the problem is that green leds are inefficient, so they use a combo of two blue leds and one red. one of the blue leds is coated with phosphor for a green light.
		Logged

Administrator of Lighting-Gallery.net. Need help? PM me.

Member of L-G since 2005.

Collector of vintage bulbs, street lights and fluorescent fixtures.

Electrician.

Also a fan of cars, travelling, working out, food, hanging out.

Power company: Southern California Edison.

	Re: 200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « Reply #6 on: April 11, 2013, 04:22:53 PM » Author: Matt L
There is little doubt that for general lighting, the TLED will make an impact. However, designers will still be calling for specific "colors" which the TLED market may not be able to provide.
		Logged

=[F40/MATT     }=

	Re: 200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « Reply #7 on: April 12, 2013, 12:33:17 AM » Author: Medved
Quote from: Ash on April 11, 2013, 02:33:36 PM That could be, but claiming 200 Lm/W when no 200Lm/W are even made by the lamp is big fat lie. Well, yes and no. "No", because what really matter is not the efficacy of the "naked" light source (LED vs fluorescent tube), but of the complete fixture (LED office ceiling fixture vs fluorescent office ceiling fixture), so the energy need to illuminate given space with given quality of light. So if some light source allow more portion of it's light to be utilized there, it does mean the system consume less power, so it's system efficacy is higher, even when the naked light source is of the same efficacy. The same reason, so the reduction in "waste light" is, why existing 100lm/W LED in a well designed sreet light does the same job as the 140lm/W HPS or 200lm/W LPS...
		Logged

No more selfballasted c***

	Re: 200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « Reply #8 on: April 12, 2013, 01:17:04 AM » Author: dor123
Silverliner: "i read the trick was done by using a sort of a rgb design. the problem is that green leds are inefficient, so they use a combo of two blue leds and one red. one of the blue leds is coated with phosphor for a green light." The modern InGaN emerald green LED, there is no reason that it will be less efficient than the blue LED (Both have the same die). InGaN true green LEDs are very bright.
		Logged

I"m don't speak English well, and rely on online translating to write in this site.
Please forgive me if my choice of my words looks like offensive, while that isn't my intention.

I only working with the international date format (dd.mm.yyyy).

I lives in Israel, which is a 220-240V, 50hz country.

	Re: 200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « Reply #9 on: April 12, 2013, 11:33:26 AM » Author: Medved
Quote from: dor123 on April 12, 2013, 01:17:04 AM The modern InGaN emerald green LED, there is no reason that it will be less efficient than the blue LED (Both have the same die). InGaN true green LEDs are very bright. With the same efficiency as the blue LED's (around 50%), the greens would be at ~250..300lm/W, but they are fas short of that...
		Logged

No more selfballasted c***

	Re: 200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « Reply #10 on: April 14, 2013, 06:16:51 PM » Author: Silverliner
well guys better get used to an all-led future in general lighting. no one is going to take your collections away, you can still find plenty of nos flashbulbs and vacuum tubes around and these things are long dead from normal use. an all-led lighting would mean going up and down the streets in different cities, and see virtually nothing but leds in various forms, both replacement lamps and integrated fixtures, until you look inside a search light and find a HMI lamp or in a movie projector and find a xenon short arc lamp. and maybe a few specialty incandescents for reptile lighting at the corner pet shop. i'd say at least 95% of existing lighting will go to LED and other solid state technologies. we will be like the hobbyists who love classic cars and film cameras. even among these, there are still some today who prefer carburetors and leaded gas and hate fuel injection!
		Logged

Administrator of Lighting-Gallery.net. Need help? PM me.

Member of L-G since 2005.

Collector of vintage bulbs, street lights and fluorescent fixtures.

Electrician.

Also a fan of cars, travelling, working out, food, hanging out.

Power company: Southern California Edison.

	Re: 200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « Reply #11 on: April 14, 2013, 07:22:16 PM » Author: Silverliner
interesting, yeah the more i think about it i think you might be right about around 50-75% or so. one of the first light sources replaced by LEDs was the neon glow lamp which was an early indicator lamp in electronics and the neon glow lamp is still made today after over 40 years of red LED availability! also, i read that (and that's a statement from the philips ceo!) the cheapest a LED A-19 retrofit lamp will be $5 apiece in several years due to the cost of semiconductor making and the limits in how cheap they can get. that's more expensive than CFLs and halogens so as long as the latter two are still legal it will be tough to get leds into all sockets. btw max did you get my message the other day?
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 07:33:23 PM by Silverliner »		Logged

Administrator of Lighting-Gallery.net. Need help? PM me.

Member of L-G since 2005.

Collector of vintage bulbs, street lights and fluorescent fixtures.

Electrician.

Also a fan of cars, travelling, working out, food, hanging out.

Power company: Southern California Edison.

	Re: 200 lumens per watt LED replacement! « Reply #12 on: April 15, 2013, 03:14:29 PM » Author: Medved
Quote from: Max on April 14, 2013, 06:57:04 PM see the situation today with mercury lamps, nearly fifty years after the introduction of the far more efficient HPS lamps) But there is one significant difference: MV's (even the clear ones) give off white light (in the case of clear MV's at least the direct light appear as white), what is very frequently accepted as higher quality light (even when the pure CRI figure is actually opposite with clear MV's) than the yellowish HPS. Moreover the green vegetation look quite dark under the HPS. And this slowed down the HPS acceptance over MV quite a lot. As the LED's would be either white (or slightly greenish, if the efficacy would be boosted; in any case the vegetation would easy to illuminate), it would be more attractive color than the HPS, what would make the LED's from HPS transition way faster than was the MV to HPS. Quote from: Max on April 14, 2013, 06:57:04 PM The evolution toward solid-state technologies means above all that the lighting industry will eventually become … an electronic industry! This is the direction the LED's are heading now, but I'm afraid if LED's want to really become the reliable light source, they would have to take one step back and return to more electrically robust ballast concept than any (lightweight) "electronic" could provide (mainly in terms of overvoltages).  Today after single lightning strike (not direct hit, only induced spikes) all electronic ballasts in streetlights went out for good in 4 streets, while the "magnetic" just extinguish the lamps and after a while restarted. (and all incandescent lamps someone put into "magnetic" HPS fixtures exploded as well). It was mainly HID, but I doubt the LED ballasts would behave differently.  I can not help myself, but the "classical" series choke as the main ballast could not be beaten on reliability with such events quite common with longer and quite exposed wiring...
		Logged

No more selfballasted c***